Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

How does that help Guard/Orks/'Nids then?

No idea. Wait until we know all the rules.

Nids are never a problem to balance. There is no point cost so low that nids no longer feel like nids. Marines had a problem that you had to buff them with something that wasn't simply cost reductions, because if you did that, they would become an horde army, which would have felt "wrong".
Aeldari factions have similar problems, but nids?

For nids, even if a fex ends up being 40 points, it is still a perfectly good representation of nids on the table.

Something similar is also true for orks and guards. They are supposed to be endless.
Assume for a moment that guards, boyz and gants are not affected by the cost increase. That would already fix it.

Right, marines shouldn't be a cheap horde (cries in csm).

Spoletta wrote:
Nids are never a problem to balance. There is no point cost so low that nids no longer feel like nids. Marines had a problem that you had to buff them with something that wasn't simply cost reductions, because if you did that, they would become an horde army, which would have felt "wrong".
Aeldari factions have similar problems, but nids?

For nids, even if a fex ends up being 40 points, it is still a perfectly good representation of nids on the table.

Something similar is also true for orks and guards. They are supposed to be endless.
Assume for a moment that guards, boyz and gants are not affected by the cost increase. That would already fix it.

I’ll politely disagree on the Nids thing.

I’ve never really been able to list up a satisfying (to me) Nid list since 3rd Ed. My preference is for a suitably mixed bag of gribblies. I want a decent number of little ‘uns for scuttling about and being a pest, middle ‘uns to keep everyone together and act as fine pressure points, and big ‘uns for stomping the enemy into little splutchy, easily digested pancakes.

And I just cannot get a list together that feels right on the tabletop. This is broadly reflected in lists we see from Tournaments and other organised events, where Nid players (understandably) tend to specialise in one area. Nidzilla is of course the classical if not exactly modern example.

And the smaller the points, the harder it is to run my list preference.

But perfectly happy to accept that’s just me being a weirdo!

A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.

There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.

Again. It's good for everyone.

If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.

 Lance845 wrote:
A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.

There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.

Again. It's good for everyone.

If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.

No discussion there, what people are probably slightly concerned with is the fact that intercissors go up 17% with their rules intact due to what we know what remains, whilest cultists go up by 50%

1) take no point value as gospel till it's released.

2) GW is going to release a book every year with new point values anyway. Expect the values to be broken in one way or another forever. What has always been will always be.

3) maybe the app means you won't have to buy the book?

 p5freak wrote:
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

Banning re-rolls also means less dice are rolled. That should be a goal, not to reduce the models count. A game with no re-rolls and less powerful auras would be way better IMHO.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.

There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.

Again. It's good for everyone.

If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.

No discussion there, what people are probably slightly concerned with is the fact that intercissors go up 17% with their rules intact due to what we know what remains, whilest cultists go up by 50%

Makes perfect sense in the light of the mission spoiled. The value of a unit simply "existing" has increased. Even if you are bad at shooting and chopping, you can still perform actions.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
A universal points increase is good for everyone and the game. As they said in the article it allows for more granularity. Just as an example if all points doubled then a termagant being 8 points can be balanced by dropping them to 7 or 5 instead of a 4 point Gant having nowhere to go but 3 or 2.

There is more room for nuance which allows everything to be balanced better against each other.

Again. It's good for everyone.

If after the points insrease it costs you 4k points to field the same number of models then fine.
Play 4k games.

No discussion there, what people are probably slightly concerned with is the fact that intercissors go up 17% with their rules intact due to what we know what remains, whilest cultists go up by 50%

But we also don't know what else is buffing them or nerfing them. Heck re-rolls might be harder to get even as marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

Banning re-rolls also means less dice are rolled. That should be a goal, not to reduce the models count. A game with no re-rolls and less powerful auras would be way better IMHO.

To a point. It would make many things just feel terrible to play and with damage levels going down (which we all want) but if they go down to much then massive MSU horde armies will be a thing, combining new cover that is. You can Horde without needs massive units. But that is all speculations. Also thats another reason why a tight FoC was important IMO, it made it hard for a "Horde" army to MSU like you can now, right now nids can just have 18x10 mans instead of 6x30mans. Its the same models, but plays completely differently and blast weapons might not be as effective.

 Blackie wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sounds like GW is trying to move away from horde armies with the point increase and the new blast rules. Less models mean less dice are rolled, which is always good.

Banning re-rolls also means less dice are rolled. That should be a goal, not to reduce the models count. A game with no re-rolls and less powerful auras would be way better IMHO.

Kinda why I like some of the AoS design. AoS has a pattern regarding rerolls for the most part(there are offenders here and there). Reroll 1s tend to be the only ones with Reroll all only reserved for epic big units, and the unit getting rerolls has to be wholly within the aura or not get anything at all. Add on this that a lot of those reroll abilities are tied to CP usage.

Then you have stuff like rerolling and Feeding Frenzy Ghouls in Flesh-Eater Courts that get gazillion attacks with possible rerolls and an extra attack phase. I've seen the will to live fade out in my opponent's face as I attack with a blob of 40 ghouls and get 150+ attacks with rerolling 1s on hit and reroll on wounds with the option of making them all pile in and attack again(Feeding Frenzy) with the same modifiers. Soul-crushing mechanic for all parties.

Spoletta wrote:
Nids are never a problem to balance. There is no point cost so low that nids no longer feel like nids. Marines had a problem that you had to buff them with something that wasn't simply cost reductions, because if you did that, they would become an horde army, which would have felt "wrong".
Aeldari factions have similar problems, but nids?

For nids, even if a fex ends up being 40 points, it is still a perfectly good representation of nids on the table.

Something similar is also true for orks and guards. They are supposed to be endless.
Assume for a moment that guards, boyz and gants are not affected by the cost increase. That would already fix it.

We aren't talking about point drops. Point increases yes. With chaos cultist 6 pts ork boyz will be 8-10 pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Makes perfect sense in the light of the mission spoiled. The value of a unit simply "existing" has increased. Even if you are bad at shooting and chopping, you can still perform actions.

Non horde just takes killy secondaries and avoids that issue.

 Eldarsif wrote:


Kinda why I like some of the AoS design. AoS has a pattern regarding rerolls for the most part(there are offenders here and there). Reroll 1s tend to be the only ones with Reroll all only reserved for epic big units, and the unit getting rerolls has to be wholly within the aura or not get anything at all. Add on this that a lot of those reroll abilities are tied to CP usage.

Yeah, I mean some specific re-rolls may be nice: take a single unit in the codex like tankbustas who can re-roll hits against a specific kind of targets (vehicles) or a single character (Badrukk) who gives the re-roll of 1s only to a specific unit (Flash Gitz). That is acceptable, a character that allows ANYTHING to automatically re-roll hits and/or wounds is flat out bad and needs to be addressed. Auras that buff defensive stats like the KFF, Haemonculus bonus to coven stuff or some buffing morale auras are also nice because they reduce killyness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


To a point. It would make many things just feel terrible to play and with damage levels going down (which we all want) but if they go down to much then massive MSU horde armies will be a thing, combining new cover that is. You can Horde without needs massive units. But that is all speculations. Also thats another reason why a tight FoC was important IMO, it made it hard for a "Horde" army to MSU like you can now, right now nids can just have 18x10 mans instead of 6x30mans. Its the same models, but plays completely differently and blast weapons might not be as effective.

And what's the problem with orks or nids hordes? They certainly don't look impossibile to deal with anyway in 8th. The only real problem I see with hordes is that you can ally some cheap troops to armies that aren't designed to have any of them, with no drawbacks. Another issue could be related to slow playing but we'd be talking about lists with 180+ cheap troops. Many "hordes" lists have actually 90ish cheap dudes in total. To "fix" those 180+ cheap bodies lists just bring back limitations on the FOC. 6 troops at most, unless handicapping yourself somehow, should fix pretty much everything related to that matter. Some armies could still bring 180 dudes but none of them is actually something overpowered.

 Blackie wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:


Kinda why I like some of the AoS design. AoS has a pattern regarding rerolls for the most part(there are offenders here and there). Reroll 1s tend to be the only ones with Reroll all only reserved for epic big units, and the unit getting rerolls has to be wholly within the aura or not get anything at all. Add on this that a lot of those reroll abilities are tied to CP usage.

Yeah, I mean some specific re-rolls may be nice: take a single unit in the codex like tankbustas who can re-roll hits against a specific kind of targets (vehicles) or a single character (Badrukk) who gives the re-roll of 1s only to a specific unit (Flash Gitz). That is acceptable, a character that allows ANYTHING to automatically re-roll hits and/or wounds is flat out bad and needs to be addressed. Auras that buff defensive stats like the KFF, Haemonculus bonus to coven stuff or some buffing morale auras are also nice because they reduce killyness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


To a point. It would make many things just feel terrible to play and with damage levels going down (which we all want) but if they go down to much then massive MSU horde armies will be a thing, combining new cover that is. You can Horde without needs massive units. But that is all speculations. Also thats another reason why a tight FoC was important IMO, it made it hard for a "Horde" army to MSU like you can now, right now nids can just have 18x10 mans instead of 6x30mans. Its the same models, but plays completely differently and blast weapons might not be as effective.

And what's the problem with orks or nids hordes? They certainly don't look impossibile to deal with anyway in 8th. The only real problem I see with hordes is that you can ally some cheap troops to armies that aren't designed to have any of them, with no drawbacks. Another issue could be related to slow playing but we'd be talking about lists with 180+ cheap troops. Many "hordes" lists have actually 90ish cheap dudes in total. To "fix" those 180+ cheap bodies lists just bring back limitations on the FOC. 6 troops at most, unless handicapping yourself somehow, should fix pretty much everything related to that matter. Some armies could still bring 180 dudes but none of them is actually something overpowered.

B.c i'm talking about what ifs for 9th sense they talked about what ifs. Im saying with all re-rolls are gone and blasts are the only real Anti-horde, 10mans are not counted as a horde, and with new terrain rules then 10mans MSU units could become OP. SO you need to be careful about rules interactions and no-rr's

Also b.c no rr's it could make single shot guns 100% worthless, there are good reasons why we don't see Lascanonns or Dark Lances, evenif they got better rules to hurt vehicles, if they can't hit why even take them? Remember 5th? Rhino rush and Spearhead tactics was superior until GK and Necrons b.c even if you had 12 Lascannons it wasn't enough to break the LR, Rhinos, and Razorbacks b.c you still miss with 1/3 of the shots and 1/3 of the wounds.

I'm just showing what ifs before we declare XYZ is good for the game.

The specific implementation can be done poorly (and knowing GW it likely will be). But that is a different thing from if the general design concept is good for the game.

Let me be clear when I say this. Point increases across the board IS good for the game. There is no doubt of that. It's just true. Giving yourself more design space to play in is better.

Wether or not GW USES that design space to make the game better is another thing entirely. And I don't exactly trust GWs ability to do anything.

I mean, this is kind of a moot point. Almost all rerolls are directly on unit datasheets. They've said datasheets won't be changing much with the new edition. I think rerolls are here to stay.

the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, this is kind of a moot point. Almost all rerolls are directly on unit datasheets. They've said datasheets won't be changing much with the new edition. I think rerolls are here to stay.

Agreed.
They COULD implement a general rule that you can only reroll one roll per attack, like only hits OR wounds and if your rule states you can reroll both you have to decide which one to use in the new system. But I'm not seeing it yet.

Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.

Hey, heyheyhey, whatever happened to observing the beautful transformations of nature, rather than interfering with them. Less peanut gallery, more david attenborough.

We're about to witness a beautiful transmogrification in one direction or another. The larval stage is nearly complete, and it has begun weaving an intricate nest. Posts stating minor discontent with the current structures of the edition have begun to show, clearly indicating that an anticipation to a full pivot to the newest edition may be required. But can the burden of mental dissonance be withstood? Can the grand pivot be achieved, or will he, like so many others, fail in his task and become another of the Wistful Nostalgics, continually harking back to the lost golden age?

Truly, one of nature's great dramas is about to unfold. Let's observe.

Martel732 wrote:Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.

Gee, it's almost like people who enjoyed certain things and were happy to defend them don't like other things, and people don't just blindly support GW!

If Ishagu doesn't start making threads complaining about secondaries and starts making non-constructive rants and whining in every thread, that's already a better standard than many other people.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


B.c i'm talking about what ifs for 9th sense they talked about what ifs. Im saying with all re-rolls are gone and blasts are the only real Anti-horde, 10mans are not counted as a horde, and with new terrain rules then 10mans MSU units could become OP. SO you need to be careful about rules interactions and no-rr's

Which 10man MSU units could really become OP though? Ork boyz are pure trash in those numbers, always have been barring a few old list with tons of trukks which were never really competitive anyway. Now even more than previous editions as they lost the attack they used to get on the charge and power klaws are a joke.

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.

The new missions are neither CA oriented nor ITC oriented. They are a good mix which takes the best of the two systems. I have to see how much you can get by just killing secondaries, but for now i like it.

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.

The new missions are neither CA oriented nor ITC oriented. They are a good mix which takes the best of the two systems. I have to see how much you can get by just killing secondaries, but for now i like it.

I suppose that's important because killing secondary + enemy denial of scoring = double dipping from killing.

The two that we saw are actually meant to be punishing specific skews.

Many lists don't have 5 characters. Especially in this new single detachment world.

Many lists don't have 150 models.

I expect the killing secondaries to be aimed at punishing extreme builds, more than being an easy way for lists to get points while ignoring the mission.

This thread got me thinking about game design... https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/further-musings-on-game-design-what-will-9th-bring/

TLDR - 40k's success and legacy means it's stuck being IGOUGO forever, despite the distinct possibility of rules writers wanting to redesign it with different activation models, with a couple of real world examples for comparison

Martel732 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen much Ishagu after that mission preview. I want to hear how secondaries are great and he always supported them and GW is genius and ITC stole the idea from GW all along.

The new missions are neither CA oriented nor ITC oriented. They are a good mix which takes the best of the two systems. I have to see how much you can get by just killing secondaries, but for now i like it.

I suppose that's important because killing secondary + enemy denial of scoring = double dipping from killing.

I think I saw him on Bolter and Chainsword where he said he'd been given a time out by the mods. He was emphatically against it initially, I think he used tersm like swamp water trickling into the studio or some such.

I currently think the way GW are implementing some ITC elements seems good, it's a blend between ITC and what they were moving towards previously.

I think the key difference that we've seen so far between current ITC and what GW are proposing is the Four Pillars primary gives no points for killing the enemy, so it's all about board control. It's a subtle difference, but not being able to get a point a turn just for killing something means you have to engage with the mission a lot more and I hope we'll see more missions with similar set-ups where you can take an army and tailor the secondary missions for it but you still need to be able to complete the primary in order to win.

 Skinflint Games wrote:
This thread got me thinking about game design... https://skinflintgames.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/further-musings-on-game-design-what-will-9th-bring/

TLDR - 40k's success and legacy means it's stuck being IGOUGO forever, despite the distinct possibility of rules writers wanting to redesign it with different activation models, with a couple of real world examples for comparison

I don't buy it. GW has changed a lot of fundamental concepts of 40K over the years, so why is an IGOUGO turn structure sacrosanct? If they could throw out the FOC (a staple of the game for literally decades!) and replace it with a flexible detachment system, tie it to a command point generation and CCG-esque game layer on top, and simultaneously radically overhaul the hit, wound, AP, morale, and vehicle systems, it doesn't seem like adhering to nostalgia is paramount.

Even without throwing out IGOUGO altogether, there's plenty of scope for a reaction system. Andy Chambers' first project after leaving GW, Starship Troopers, was an IGOUGO system with a reaction mechanic that made it significantly more dynamic. Early turns are straight IGOUGO, but as forces close within reaction range, it gets very fast-paced and closer to AA while still being within a technically IGOUGO paradigm.

To use the analogy in the post, I'd say 8th Ed already is the Caiman. There are those who still play 7th or 30K, being the classic and familiar design, but 8th is the redesigned and updated system that butchered a lot of sacred cows from the past six or seven editions and reworked many core mechanics from the ground up. We're already firmly into the realm of an evolving game; no reason why straight walk-away-for-thirty-minutes IGOUGO needs to stay.

3 hour games of IGOUGO are boring. The birth of so many other systems proves some form of alternate activation is just better. We also know GW is incapable of making good design decisions, because they are a model company not a game company. The best designed GW games ever were created by FFG. FFG also tightened up the L5R LCG by redesign of the AEG legacy mess. With this in mind I think the best way to fix 40k is for Asmodee to acquire GW.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

IGOUGO isn't great for tournaments and playing with strangers in stores, because you aren't in control of the environment and you usually don't know your opponents very well. I know many posters on Dakka only play this way, so I understand why they feel this way.

But for home players, the break between turns is awesome. It gives you a chance to breathe, to talk to everyone else in the room, to change the tunes, order the pizza, make the drinks, etc.

If 40k demanded my continuous attention for the amount of time it takes to set up, play and teardown, I would hate it. I've used comparisons between Baseball and American Football (which feel like IGOUGO games) vs. Basketball, Tennis and Hockey (which feel like AA games).

Because there are some people who like one type of sport or the other, I had hoped to illustrate that IGOUGO vs. AA is a preference, not a situation where one system is inherently better than the other.

In my experience, those with an IGOUGO preference tend to understand the appeal of AA despite their preference, while those with an AA preference fail to understand how anyone could like IGOUGO, and blame it entirely for all the failings of the game when other factors (such as poor LOS and Terrain rules) are far more responsible for the problem than IGOUGO.

The other thing that frustrates me about AA advocates is that they already have solutions to their problems, because they could just choose to play Apocalypse and be happy, but for some sick and twisted reason which I fail to comprehend, they prefer to play 40k, hate every minute of it, whine endlessly about it on the internet and bring everyone else down.

I don't think AA advocates actually want the thing they claim to want, since they already have it and aren't happy. I think what they actually want is for no one else to be able to enjoy the game unless it is on their terms. It's a case of "I can already play the game the way I like, but I want everyone else to be forced to play the game I like."

Sticking with IGOUGO in 40k for as long as Apocalypse continues to exist is an everyone wins scenario, because no one is losing anything. If Apocalypse dies, well, we'll have to revisit the conversation, because at that point, people with an AA preference won't have an option. But as it stands, they do, so they should use it and leave everyone else's game alone.

An if Apocalypse is allowed to die, that brings up another hole in the AA argument. If AA is as much better than IGOUGO as all these AA advocates claim, why isn't Apocalypse the hottest selling system in the range?

Could it be that they have over estimated the importance of their competitive/tournament based bubble of a couple hundred thousand players against the overwhelming majority of millions of players who play casually in garages and basements with friends?

I mean, I'm just saying if it smells like max profit for IGOUGO and minimal profit from AA, it might just mean that the majority of players have been speaking loudly with wallets for 33 years.

But of course an armchair game designer on Dakka knows better, right?